Those of you that have the Sony DSLR - what are your thoughts

[The Stigenator]

BB has the Sony DSLR w/ kit lens and a 75-300mm extra lens for 799.99+ tax this week. Sure it does not have the fancy 12 mnth financing but yeah its very tempting.

So I do concert photography and stuff, and i do a lot of low light, slow shutter speed shots on my current S3IS. THe S3IS has an aperture range of 2.7-3.5 -> 8.0, which is pretty bright for a lens. Usually i am shooting anywhere from 1/20 to 1/50 on the widest aperture at ISO 400 or 800, and i will say its pretty noisy.

I hear the SONY is pretty noisy too over 400ISO, but it does have a bigger chip and lens but the kit lenses and the add on lens is kinda slow (3.5-5.6 on kit, and 4.5-5.6 on add on lens)

The other option is to go with the Nikon they have on sale, DX40 for 899.99. It comes with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses. Again not the best lenses.

For concert photography i do need IS and hence the sony is in the running. Otherwise if i have to go the canon route, i would have to get an XTi and IS lenses which raises my budget past 2500 and i dont have that kind of cash lying around.

So if you got some night time photos and your personal opinions on the Sony at night/high ISO's let me know. I read all the reviews, and issue with the noise at ISO seems to push me away from the sony. Though I dont even know if i need a DSLR.. I got like what 4 of them (S3IS, S1IS, A75, Casio S5000 i think)

 

[The Stigenator]

Best Buy - Sony Package

Best Buy - Nikon D40x package.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Even though the A100 is not quite as good as some other DSLRs at high ISO, it will be much better than any point and shoot. That said, for indoor concert photography, you'll almost certainly need an f/2.8 or faster lens and neither the kit lens nor the 75-300 will provide that. Of course, neither will the lenses that come with the Nikon. I really like my A100 and I find it to be an excellent tool at its price point, but I have nothing bad to say about the Nikon or Canon offerings either.

You're better off to buy the camera body only and concentrate on finding fast glass in your case if you really want something for indoor concerts.

ZV

 

[jpeyton]

You forgot the "other option": don't buy your camera from Best Buy.

Get a body plus a fast telephoto (f/2.8), preferably one with optical image stabilization. They are expensive, but shooting theater is hard.

 

[ElFenix]

IS isn't a panacea. it lets you leave the shutter open longer than you otherwise would (which isn't any different from using a tripod or a bean bag). it'll actually worsen the blur due to subject movement (which tends to happen during concerts).

fast glass, on the other hand, lets you use a faster shutter speed. so, do be sure to pick up the minolta 50/1.7 (if you get the sony) or the nikon ert, nm, the d40 can't focus using the nikon 50 f/1.8.

pentax also offers in-body IS, and a 50 f/1.4 is about $200. the K10D is very nice as long as you shoot RAW (the in camera jpg converter seems to suck).

 

[soydios]

Or...you could get a Canon or Nikon, and get a 50mm f/1.8, aka the "nifty fifty" or "plastic fantastic". Concert photography demands an f/2.8 or better lens. IMO, unless Nikon releases a D40-priced camera with built-in AF motor so the older non-AF-S lenses will focus, get a Canon Rebel XTi and the 50mm f/1.8, along with whatever other kit lenses you so desire.

 

[dug777]

Used D50 and the 50mm f/1.8?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You forgot the "other option": don't buy your camera from Best Buy.

Get a body plus a fast telephoto (f/2.8), preferably one with optical image stabilization. They are expensive, but shooting theater is hard.

If you have in-body IS, there's no need to worry about lens-based IS. This is one of the major selling points of the Sony, Pentax, and Olympus systems.

ZV

 

[DBL]

IS is not particularly useful for concert photography due to subject movement (although this can suit a particular style sometimes). IMO, if this is something you are interested in, you should go with Canon or perhaps a CMOS based Nikon. If you go with something like the Sony, you would be giving up at least 1 or even 2 stops worth of noise. You want clean ISO 1600 and usable ISO 3200 ability.

You also want a fast lens. f/2.8 is a bare minimum when shooting concert photography w/o a flash. In fact, I would get a faster lens if possible. It will only help. The cheap 50 f/1.8 canon is nice but its focusing in low light is hit or miss. The 85 f/1.8 has USM which is a step up and the 85 f/1.4 would be ideal IMO. Likewise, there is also the 50 f/1.4 and the 50 f/1.2.

Bottom line for concert photography is that a fast lens and clean high ISO are both priorities. IF you go with a camera or lens that is lacking in either category, you are already at a disadvantage.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: DBL
IS is not particularly useful for concert photography due to subject movement (although this can suit a particular style sometimes). IMO, if this is something you are interested in, you should go with Canon or perhaps a CMOS based Nikon. If you go with something like the Sony, you would be giving up at least 1 or even 2 stops worth of noise. You want clean ISO 1600 and usable ISO 3200 ability.

You also want a fast lens. f/2.8 is a bare minimum when shooting concert photography w/o a flash. In fact, I would get a faster lens if possible. It will only help. The cheap 50 f/1.8 canon is nice but its focusing in low light is hit or miss. The 85 f/1.8 has USM which is a step up and the 85 f/1.4 would be ideal IMO. Likewise, there is also the 50 f/1.4 and the 50 f/1.2.

Bottom line for concert photography is that a fast lens and clean high ISO are both priorities. IF you go with a camera or lens that is lacking in either category, you are already at a disadvantage.

Canon does not have an 85mm f/1.4. It's an 85mm f/1.2. And it's $1,750. If he's looking at ~$800 kits, there's not much chance that he's going to be in the market for a $1,750 lens. The 85mm f/1.8 does come in around $330 and is a possibility, as is the 100mm f/2 at $375, but both might be a little short depending on how far away he is.

As far as the A100 at high ISO, its reputation is a bit undeserved. It's a trifle noisier than Canon or Nikon, but at normal print size or normal web size the high-ISO shots are just fine. Remember that when viewing at 100% on a monitor you are usually looking at an image that is shown at about 96 PPI (on an LCD monitor). At 96 PPI am image from a 2mp camera would be 16.67 inches by 12.5 inches. An image from a 10mp DSLR at 96 DPI would be equivalent to an image blown up to 40x27 inches. Absolutely gigantic.

In practice, there's no real problem with the A100's high ISO images unless you're intending to be printing out poster-size prints. Even up to 8x10 it should be fine.

ZV

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Canon does not have an 85mm f/1.4. It's an 85mm f/1.2. And it's $1,750. If he's looking at ~$800 kits, there's not much chance that he's going to be in the market for a $1,750 lens. The 85mm f/1.8 does come in around $330 and is a possibility, as is the 100mm f/2 at $375, but both might be a little short depending on how far away he is.

As far as the A100 at high ISO, its reputation is a bit undeserved. It's a trifle noisier than Canon or Nikon, but at normal print size or normal web size the high-ISO shots are just fine. Remember that when viewing at 100% on a monitor you are usually looking at an image that is shown at about 96 PPI (on an LCD monitor). At 96 PPI am image from a 2mp camera would be 16.67 inches by 12.5 inches. An image from a 10mp DSLR at 96 DPI would be equivalent to an image blown up to 40x27 inches. Absolutely gigantic.

In practice, there's no real problem with the A100's high ISO images unless you're intending to be printing out poster-size prints. Even up to 8x10 it should be fine.
ZV

Thanks for the correction. I gave him a bunch of options ranging form $80 and up. That happened to be the most expensive choice. But that is all besides the point.

For indoor concert photography, he is much better off with a Canon. A lot of your argument is true, but for low light photography, the A100 is not ideal. At f/2.0 and ISO 1600, the Canon will produce cleaner sharper and more detailed images. The differences will show in sizes as small as 8x10 and likely 5x7. Personally, I'd look at a used 30D or 20D if possible since it comes with a usable ISO 3200.

Dpreview gave the A100 a highly recommended but look at one of the few criticisms:

The A100's sensor is at its best between ISO 100 and 400, delivering fairly noise free and sharp images with plenty of detail (especially if you shoot RAW). Above this and the A100 loses out in comparisons to Canon's excellent CMOS sensor which maintains more detail and exhibits less noise.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: DBL
Thanks for the correction. I gave him a bunch of options ranging form $80 and up. That happened to be the most expensive choice. But that is all besides the point.

For indoor concert photography, he is much better off with a Canon. A lot of your argument is true, but for low light photography, the A100 is not ideal. At f/2.0 and ISO 1600, the Canon will produce cleaner sharper and more detailed images. The differences will show in sizes as small as 8x10 and likely 5x7. Personally, I'd look at a used 30D or 20D if possible since it comes with a usable ISO 3200.

Dpreview gave the A100 a highly recommended but look at one of the few criticisms:

The A100's sensor is at its best between ISO 100 and 400, delivering fairly noise free and sharp images with plenty of detail (especially if you shoot RAW). Above this and the A100 loses out in comparisons to Canon's excellent CMOS sensor which maintains more detail and exhibits less noise.

I still think that calling a $1,750 lens an "option" for the OP is like calling a Carrera GT an "option" for me when I go used car shopping next. Sure it's technically available, but it's not a realistic recommendation. You're right though that it's slightly tangential, especially as the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are so reasonably priced.

As I said, the A100 is not as clean as the Canon at ISO 800 and 1600. However, claims of "much better off" and that the differences will be in any way significant at 8x10 strike me as hyperbolic. Yes, pixel-peeping at 100% magnification will show the Canon to be superior, but in practice the differences are minimal.

ZV

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I still think that calling a $1,750 lens an "option" for the OP is like calling a Carrera GT an "option" for me when I go used car shopping next. Sure it's technically available, but it's not a realistic recommendation. You're right though that it's slightly tangential, especially as the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are so reasonably priced.

As I said, the A100 is not as clean as the Canon at ISO 800 and 1600. However, claims of "much better off" and that the differences will be in any way significant at 8x10 strike me as hyperbolic. Yes, pixel-peeping at 100% magnification will show the Canon to be superior, but in practice the differences are minimal.
ZV

So remind me again why you would recommend a A100 over a Canon DSLR for extreme low light photography? IMO, this is one case where the benefits of the CMOS based camera are clearly evident.

Drop the pixel peeping comment. What if you want to crop, something very common when shooting at a fixed focal length? Besides, I can see the difference with a 20D on normal sized print-out when shooting at ISO 1600 compared with 3200. If one camera has a 1 stop noise advantage over the other, it's pretty dramatic. If it is 2 stops, then it is huge.

 

[The Stigenator]

I must reveal some of my concert photography (not all are that good) that i have done the last 2.5+ years. They were taken with S3IS and S1IS, those cameras though P&S have a fstop of 2.7 - 3.5. I run ISO 400 (max on S1IS) and ISO 400-800 (S3IS). I'll post those in a second..

I know about the faster shutter speeds and open apertures and I will admit i need an DSLR but the thing is that i dont want to spend a whole lots since i am not making any $$$ out of it and this is more of a hobby than anything else. The SONY deal at BB is not a bad deal to start off with. The noise issue is something i really do consider a problem of sorts. Partly because the noise can be very distracting at lower light levels as it does a dark field subtraction on these shorts.

Sample Pictures

Pictures taken in the 2004/05 time frame with S1IS

Pictures taken with S3IS in 2006-07 time frame.

Not my pictures but taken by S3IS donated to the organization i was shooting for. 2007 season

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I still think that calling a $1,750 lens an "option" for the OP is like calling a Carrera GT an "option" for me when I go used car shopping next. Sure it's technically available, but it's not a realistic recommendation. You're right though that it's slightly tangential, especially as the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are so reasonably priced.

As I said, the A100 is not as clean as the Canon at ISO 800 and 1600. However, claims of "much better off" and that the differences will be in any way significant at 8x10 strike me as hyperbolic. Yes, pixel-peeping at 100% magnification will show the Canon to be superior, but in practice the differences are minimal.
ZV

So remind me again why you would recommend a A100 over a Canon DSLR for extreme low light photography? IMO, this is one case where the benefits of the CMOS based camera are clearly evident.

Drop the pixel peeping comment. What if you want to crop, something very common when shooting at a fixed focal length? Besides, I can see the difference with a 20D on normal sized print-out when shooting at ISO 1600 compared with 3200. If one camera has a 1 stop noise advantage over the other, it's pretty dramatic. If it is 2 stops, then it is huge.

Never said I'd recommend it over the Canon for low-light photography. I only said that the differences are, for practical purposes, inconsequential. ISO examples from the A100. The 1024x685 images are equivalent to viewing a 10 2/3 by 7 inch 96PPI print. ISO 1600 at 1/15 second looks plenty good to me. Would a Canon be better? Yes. Would the difference be huge? Probably not. I'll dig up the full-resolution originals tonight when I get home.

I simply haven't ever seen this mythical 2-stop differential. I would say that there's a half-stop differential judging from the images that I have seen.

If he ends up choosing the Canon, that's fine with me. It's a great camera. But he asked about the A100 and based on actual use of the camera, I can say quite confidently that its high-ISO images are perfectly usable and have never been a disappointment to me.

In short: Is the A100 the perfect low-light camera? No. Is it the best low-light camera? No. Is the difference between the A100's performance and the Canon's performance earth-shattering? Absolutely not. Will the A100 be the huge handicap to low-light shooting that you're trying to portray it as? Absolutely not.

For some more "real-world" examples of the A100 at high ISO, try here. There is a lot of night and low-light photography there and I know that Stuart never felt that the A100 was his limiting factor.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Even though the A100 is not quite as good as some other DSLRs at high ISO, it will be much better than any point and shoot. That said, for indoor concert photography, you'll almost certainly need an f/2.8 or faster lens and neither the kit lens nor the 75-300 will provide that. Of course, neither will the lenses that come with the Nikon. I really like my A100 and I find it to be an excellent tool at its price point, but I have nothing bad to say about the Nikon or Canon offerings either.

You're better off to buy the camera body only and concentrate on finding fast glass in your case if you really want something for indoor concerts.

ZV

Another way to go is to buy some decent, fast, prime lenses. Primes are usually much cheaper and faster than a comparable zoom within that shooting range. If you shoot at 50mm or 100mm you might be able to pick of a good prime lens in that focal range and use it rather than buy a fast zoom lens.

 

[Heidfirst]

The Sony & D40X that you are considering both use exactly the same sensor.
Where they differ is in the processing of that sensor - the Sony errs on the side of maximum detail at low ISO (it even outperforms the D80 which again uses the same sensor) whilst trading that off against higher noise than the Nikon at higher ISO.
However, it also has in body stabilisation which effectively gains you an extra couple of stops which you can argue in many cases (not all though) counters the need for higher ISO.

I would handle them both as 1 may suit you better plus I would strongly consider getting body only (or selling the kit lenses) in pursuit of lenses better suited to your needs.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Never said I'd recommend it over the Canon for low-light photography. I only said that the differences are, for practical purposes, inconsequential. ISO examples from the A100. The 1024x685 images are equivalent to viewing a 10 2/3 by 7 inch 96PPI print. ISO 1600 at 1/15 second looks plenty good to me. Would a Canon be better? Yes. Would the difference be huge? Probably not. I'll dig up the full-resolution originals tonight when I get home.

I simply haven't ever seen this mythical 2-stop differential. I would say that there's a half-stop differential judging from the images that I have seen.

If he ends up choosing the Canon, that's fine with me. It's a great camera. But he asked about the A100 and based on actual use of the camera, I can say quite confidently that its high-ISO images are perfectly usable and have never been a disappointment to me.

In short: Is the A100 the perfect low-light camera? No. Is it the best low-light camera? No. Is the difference between the A100's performance and the Canon's performance earth-shattering? Absolutely not. Will the A100 be the huge handicap to low-light shooting that you're trying to portray it as? Absolutely not.

For some more "real-world" examples of the A100 at high ISO, try here. There is a lot of night and low-light photography there and I know that Stuart never felt that the A100 was his limiting factor.

ZV

That's a lot of good information, much of which I agree with.

I'm not trying to be difficult but if someone were to tell me they are looking at a DSLR and low light concert photography was one of their main priorities, I would likely recommend a Canon, based on the extra noise edge those cameras have. In everyday shooting, you will rarely have any issues but concert photography is one area where you benefit from the highest ISO's consistently.

Think of this scenario. I'm shooting a Canon setup at Tv = 1/100 with an 80mm at max f/1.8 at ISO 1600. In order to get this performance w/o sacrificing shutter speed on the Sony, you would likely need to use ISO 800 and f/1.2. Like you noticed, that requires a nearly 2K lens. However, what would likely happen is that you would move the shutter speed to 1/50, which in effect lowers your keeper ratio by a tremendous margin (perhaps 50%)

Each camera has an ISO you would like to avoid if possible. Of course, this can be a bit subjective based on personal preference and the level of post processing noise reduction you can tolerate. For me, with the Canon 20D, it is ISO 3200. If I had a Sony, whether the noise difference is 1/2 stop or 1 stop, I'm guessing that limit would be ISO1600. IMO, that is a handicap when shooting in low-light situations.

Whatever the OP's decision, I do agree that any DSLR would make a tremendous difference though.

 

[The Stigenator]

thanks for your point of view. What do you think of the sample pictures, any comments I got gigs of pigs I need to upload but also post process since I didnt post em

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: DBL
Whatever the OP's decision, I do agree that any DSLR would make a tremendous difference though.

:beer: Amen.

ZV

 

[The Stigenator]

darn this is such a hard decision for me.. should i just jump and buy the SONY DSLR?

 

[Zenmervolt]

With Sony having just released the A700, the number of used A100 on the market is climbing, you might be able to get a good deal on a used A100 if you're not dead set on buying new.

The same goes for a used Digital Rebel.

ZV

 

[The Stigenator]

good point ZV.. I could wait and see..Its not like i am shooting a lot of pics these days, i've been kinda stagnant.

 

[Heidfirst]

if you are prepared to wait we believe that the A100 is due for replacement early in the New Year - there's also a rumour that there may be another entry level Sony DSLR below the current A100's place in the market which along with their forthcoming model pitched above the A700 would give them a 4 model range.

 

[AndrewR]

All advantages of the Canon line disappear when you consider the new A700. Granted, it's above your price point, but it might warrant some consideration when you consider the benefits. The A700 has a CMOS sensor, just like the vaunted Canons, plus it has the in-body stabilization which no Canon camera has (or likely ever will have). The A700 also has extremely fast focusing and very good focusing accuracy even in lower light. You also get the ability to use the simple wireless flash system which Sony (from Minolta) has on their camera line using the A700's built-in flash as the trigger.

I have the A100, and I plan on upgrading next year, primarily for the ergonomics of the A700 and the improved focusing. I started on the Minolta 7D, and I absolutely loved the feel and layout of that camera so the move to the A100 was not altogether welcome (nothing from Canon or Nikon comes close either for that matter). I've liked the image quality, and I've become accustomed to the layout and handling. I have noticed some focusing issues with large apertures (>2.8, a known issue), and one of my best lenses is a 28 f/2.0 which is frustrating -- the A700 corrects that issue with the improved focusing system. Part of the issue is the viewfinder on the A100, but the Canon Rebel viewfinder is, at best, comparable to the A100 (A700, like my old 7D, has a pentaprism, not a pentamirror so it's much brighter).

I haven't regretted the move to the A100 because it allowed me to keep my Minolta glass. Don't underestimate even 20 year old lenses from Minolta -- they produced some amazing lenses that beat the pants off some of the plastic garbage that's sold today. The 50/1.7 is a great, cheap lens, and the 70-210/4 is fantastic for less than $200. For your purposes, the 28-75/2.8 is a great lens though perhaps not long enough depending on where you normally stand for your photos (about $300 or so, from what I remember).

Just rambling -- need to go to bed.